get_dashboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves real-time data and returns a dictionary, but it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The note '暂未实现' (not yet implemented) adds uncertainty about functionality. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but include an unnecessary note ('暂未实现') that doesn't aid tool invocation. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving real-time data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'system real-time data' includes, how the data is formatted, or error cases. The 'not yet implemented' note further undermines completeness, leaving the agent with unclear expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning for the single parameter 'pid' by explaining it's a process ID in string format (e.g., '12345'), which the input schema lacks (0% coverage). However, it doesn't clarify if 'pid' is required or optional (schema shows default='', implying optional), what happens if omitted, or provide examples beyond a generic string. With low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states '获取系统实时数据面板' (get system real-time data dashboard), which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('system real-time data dashboard'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like get_jvm_info, get_memory_info, etc.), which also appear to retrieve system information. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the numerous sibling tools for system monitoring (e.g., get_jvm_info, get_memory_info), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.